G&G-Fan

hinventon said:

Has anyone successfully removed the Luke/Leia attraction from ANH and ESB? It’s only like a handful of lines and the kiss scene and obviously goes nowhere, would be much better without them.

I made a personal fan-edit of ESB, and removing the kiss was one of the choices I made. I ended the scene with “Who’s scruffy looking?” and then the next shot Leia looking angry at him. I moved the audio of the guy on the intercom telling important personnel to report to the command center forward to explain where they’re going before wiping to Ryken. It kinda has the same effect, leaving the tension between Han and Leia unresolved. It’s not as funny and I don’t think it’s perfect but it does the job and keeps the most iconic lines.

It is kinda a shame because without the context that they’re siblings the scene is really funny and it’s objectively well-constructed, but the retcon kinda makes it uncomfortable to watch, so IMO it still kinda had to go.

Servii said:

As I said, that’s not the same thing. That’s not Obi-Wan and Yoda saying “You need to give up your attachments to the people in your life.” They’re just telling him he needs to focus on his training and avoid throwing himself recklessly and impulsively into situations due to those attachments. It’s a lesson about patience and forethought, not about non-attachment. That lines up with what George is saying in those quotes.

Contrast this with Luke and Ahsoka in BoBF, where there’s this implication that they want Din and Grogu to never see each other again for Grogu to become a Jedi.

Edit: It’s also telling that, even in George’s own words, he says that Luke is acting out of a sense of compassion. In ESB, Luke isn’t saying stuff like “I need my friends,” or “I can’t live without them.” He says “They’re my friends. I’ve gotta help them.” He wants to help them because he has a good heart, not because of selfish possessiveness.

That’s true, you got me there. But the entire point of the attachments thing is it’s, as you said, possessiveness. Possessiveness is selfishness. Of course George Lucas thinks possessiveness in a relationship is bad. Not only is that Relationships 101, it’s part of being greedy. The whole attachment debate only happens because people think the Jedi are saying, “You can’t love Padme/your mother” when they’re actually saying, “You can’t choose Padme/your mother over your duty, you can’t waste your energy when there’s nothing you can do, and if they die and it was out of your control, you can’t keep blaming yourself for it and craving power, you have to let go.”

That’s the problem with Grogu. Grogu not only isn’t putting his all into his training because he misses Din Djarin, but he would absolutely choose saving Din over saving 100 people in a burning building. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but it does make him a bad Jedi. So Luke makes him choose, Din or being a Jedi. Grogu chooses Din, and he respects his choice.

Besides the point is ultimately he can’t prioritize these people he cares about over the mission. He can’t sabotage the entire plan to destroy the Sith and the Empire they created because he jumps in unprepared to save the people he cares about and either is killed or seduced to the dark side by Darth Vader and the Emperor.

He didn’t veto her, though. He vetoed many other proposed EU ideas, but not that.

Every quote I’ve read says Lucas didn’t pay any attention at all to the EU. He always viewed it as a separate universe from his. Which is why he ignored it in everything he made. The Prequels contradict the EU as does The Clone Wars. You’d have fans yelling at him because he changed Koriban to Moraband and it’s just like, well yeah, he didn’t give a shit. When did he “veto” anything?

RogueLeader said:

I appreciate G&G-Fan pulling from the good tumblr post showing that Filoni’s interpretation of the films isn’t always the same as Lucas’. It is a good reminder.

But I do think it is interesting that Filoni, who has worked closely with George and probably knows George’s opinion on his own work more than anyone, would still have his own opinion about Qui-Avon and the failings of the Jedi even though he would know better than anyone that it doesn’t gel with George’s own view.

I think there is truth in both perspectives, not only George and Filoni’s, but also G&G and yotsuya. Because yes, George has stated his view on the story plenty of times, but it is also valid for the audience to look just at the films and pick up an interpretation. George might have had Opinion A in mind, but he isn’t a perfect filmmaker and may not totally conveyed what he was actually trying to convey. The Jedi come off as quite cold in the films, and operate out of a literally ivory tower. Arguably they have become this way because of Sith machinations and it doesn’t have to do with the Jedi system being fundamentally broken, but whether George meant to do it or not, he does not depict the Jedi as perfect. They are good, but they make mistakes.

And why can’t there be some truth in both views? Why can’t Anakin have failed the Jedi, but the Jedi also failed Anakin in some ways? I think there is a lesson in both directions: Jedi have to confront their fears or otherwise be consumed by them, but a Jedi must also remember that institutions can also obscure the will of the Force if one forgets to listen.

Seem like the debate is getting pretty heated but I’ve seen both views conveyed quite a lot online, and I think both views are interesting and valid.

This entire thing is basically just arguing from a “Death of the Author, people can come away with different interpretations”, but that’s the opposite of what this thread is about. This thread is about whether it was Lucas’ intent. And I’ve basically proven that no, it wasn’t Lucas’ intention for the Jedi to be flawed, at least ideologically (joining the clone war is something that’s debatable, but even so it was either that or avoid the draft and just stand back as people die).

I’ve never said anything about it being wrong to have a head canon or different interpretations, only people claiming their head canon is the intention of the author. “Death of the Author” is a valid way of looking at art, people are allowed to come away with different interpretations, but you then can’t say “This was the point”, only, “This was my interpretation.” You can certainly look at “Puff the Magic Dragon” as a song about smoking weed (yes, this actually happened, look it up), but the creators said, “No, it’s not.” But then you can’t turn back and say, “Actually, it was, they just don’t want to admit it!” Just accept that that was your reading of it and not the intent of the author.

I’ve also acknowledged that Lucas being a bad writer is what caused this whole thing in the first place. The Jedi appear cold to people due to Lucas’ flat way of writing dialogue, and he never talks about what his usage of the word “attachment” actually means properly. The Jedi don’t assure Anakin that it’s ok to be afraid. This are all things that caused misconceptions about what the scene is intended to say. That’s where the head canon sprouted from in the first place.

It’s important to realize that it wasn’t the author’s intent and stop speaking as if it were, but that’s not to say “You can’t view the films in this way.” I have head canons. I don’t view the sequels as canon. In fact I generally pick and choose what’s canon in Star Wars because I can’t even be bothered to read all of it XD. Another head canon I have is that in Spider-Man: No Way Home, I prefer to think that the villains in the movie aren’t actually from the movies they’re actually taken from, but rather slightly alternate versions of them from universes like them but not exactly the same as it explains the contradictions (like Doc Ock knowing Green Goblin’s identity). I know full well that wasn’t the authors intent (as indicated by the script), but who cares? If it clears up an inconsistency and makes the viewing experience better, I just go with it.

Now, I mostly prefer to go by a “Word of God” standpoint for two reasons.

1. Usually head canons result in contradictions. Someone who says the Jedi suppress their emotions is gonna have to find some loophole to explain why Yoda openly cries when he feels Anakin is in pain or openly says he’s happy for Padme when she survives the assassination. Usually this leads to, “Yoda is different from the other Jedi,” which is funny because every time a Jedi shows emotion they have to keep adding them to the list of those that aren’t like the other Jedi (Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Plo-Koon, etc.) without ever realizing that maybe the reason so many Jedi (AKA the only ones given more then exposition) “aren’t like the other Jedi” because they actually are like the other Jedi. Hell, even Mace Windu when he’s given more to do then exposition shows emotions and compassion.
   https://david-talks-sw.tumblr.com/post/698497283463987200/why-do-so-many-people-hate-on-mace-windu
   https://elivanto.tumblr.com/post/647085532445376512/underrated-clone-wars-dynamics-mace-windu
2. Going by the author’s intent has a lot more predictive power. People wouldn’t have been taken aback by Luke citing Grogu’s attachment to Din Djarin if they understood the nuance of attachment (because some people go by the interpretation that Luke choosing to love Darth Vader is attachment, when, in Lucas’ terms, it’s compassion), they would’ve seen it from a mile away rather then being surprised. Another example is that if people recognized that MJ had a look of recognition on her face in her final scene of No Way Home (obviously foreshadowing that she will return and remember Peter; this is mentioned in the script, too) they wouldn’t have been taken aback by Sony saying Zendaya is expected to return in the 4th MCU Spider-Man movie, they would’ve known from the beginning that she was always intended to return (which I’m personally very excited about, I love her character and Peter and MJ as a couple in the MCU). Their misinterpretation of the scene lead to them making an incorrect prediction about upcoming content. The difference here is that I found the author’s intent in NWH to be fairly obvious (I mean, come on, it’s the last shot of the scene) and the misinterpretation of the scene to be the result of either stupidity or denial vs. the misinterpretation of the Jedi which I think is a result of bad writing.

But if it does no harm, there’s no contradiction (or if you can manage to find a loophole for every contradiction) and it doesn’t interfere with anything upcoming (and even then, I guess you can just say the upcoming content isn’t canon to you), then who cares? But that doesn’t mean you can be factually wrong about the creator’s intentions.

Making fan-edits in general is “Death of the Author”. You’re intentionally creating your own non-canon version. You’re allowed to do that, but you gotta accept it’s not canon. But hey, if you love your fan-edit more then the real movie, who cares? Same with restoring the original cuts of the OT and preferring to watch that. The special edition is canon, but if you prefer the original cut, who cares what’s canon? I don’t care if Darth Vader yelling “Nooooooo!” when he pick sup the Emperor in ROTJ is canon, I still prefer the original version and I’m gonna watch that. You can pick or choose what you want, but in the end you still can’t lie about what’s canon. What’s canon is canon, but what’s head canon is up to you.

The thing about the whole “Filoni learned from Lucas, therefore it must be Lucas’ intent too!” is that it doesn’t account for two things. One, Filoni is still a Star Wars fan. He’s talked multiple times about times in which he came up with his own fan interpretation of something. For example, one time he stated that he believes that Anakin learned how to become a force ghost before he became Darth Vader, while in the ROTJ commentary, Lucas states he learned right before he died during the events of ROTJ from Obi-Wan and Yoda. Second of all, people who work on things together can still have different viewpoints. In Avengers: Endgame, according to the directors, Captain America created an alternate timeline when he went back to the 40s to live with Peggy. According to the screenwriters, he was still in the main MCU timeline and just lived again until the present day (closed loop). At that point you can go by which one you want. I prefer the the directors interpretation because the other one breaks the rules established by the film that every time you go back in time it creates a new alternate timeline.

Servii said:

I’m not so sure that his perception has never changed. There was no mention in the OT of a need for Luke to leave behind his attachments. Obi-Wan cautions him to not let the Emperor use those attachments against him, but that’s not the same thing.

Except there is. Here are quotes from the Empire Strikes Back commentary track:

“It’s pivotal that Luke doesn’t have patience. He doesn’t want to finish his training. He’s being succumbed by his emotional feelings for his friends rather than the practical feelings of “I’ve got to get this job done before I can actually save them. I can’t save them, really.” But he sort of takes the easy route, the arrogant route, the emotional but least practical route, which is to say, “I’m just going to go off and do this without thinking too much.” And the result is that he fails and doesn’t do well for Han Solo or himself.”
-Scene: Luke sensing Han and Leia are in danger

“Luke is making a critical mistake in his life of going after- to try to save his friends when he’s not ready. There’s a lot being taught here about patience and about waiting for the right moment to do whatever you’re going to do.”
-Scene: Luke leaving Dagobah, ignoring Yoda and Ben

“Luke is in the process of going into an extremely dangerous situation out of his compassion— Without the proper training, without the proper thought, without the proper foresight to figure out how he’s gonna get out of it. His impulses are right, but his methodology is wrong.”
-Scene: Luke flying towards Bespin

The Jedi, here, are telling him that he needs to prioritize his training over his attachments. And Lucas agrees with them. Yoda has always been a character used to give his own teachings and philosophy. You read about any scene Yoda’s in and Lucas always portrayed Yoda as in the right.

Also, Lucas was able to give the greenlight on plot points in the EU, so he must have been aware of and greenlit the Luke-Mara Jade romance and marriage and the New Jedi Order doctrine changes. Of course, he later said he disagreed with the idea of Luke getting married, but that was later.

Lucas never liked Mara Jade. Ever.

yotsuya said:

Us old farts knew Senator Palpatine was Darth Sideous when we saw him in his first scene. Young kids had no idea. The entire PT is written that way.

No, it’s written so it’s obvious he’s the Sith Lord. Why do you think him trying to egg Padme on is so on-the-nose? Him ordering Anakin to kill Dooku? Or the opera scene in Revenge of the Sith? There’s no attempt as a disguise of his voice or anything? It’s obvious on purpose. This is because Palpatine being evil is used to create tension. You’re supposed to know that something’s up with him. Most of the time it’s much better filmmaking to use tension then a surprise. Surprise can be great, but most of the time it’s way better to ring out the tension. It’s like Alfred Hitchcock’s famous quote. It lasts longer, it sticks with you more, it keeps you on the edge of your seat for longer.

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/79673/in-the-prequel-trilogy-are-we-the-audience-intended-to-know-palpatines-true

The blurb on the back of the DVD cover certainly suggests that it wasn’t a big secret…

“Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wise old Jedi from the original series, is a determined young apprentice and Palpatine, well known as the evil Emperor, is an ambitious Senator in the Galactic Republic…”

When Palpatine reveals himself as a Sith in ROTS, it’s not even made to feel like a big of a reveal to the audience. It’s nothing like Vader revealing himself to be Luke’s father, which is obviously written as a big reveal from the way the scene slowly crescendos to the famous line to the huge bombastic music afterwards. Palpatine’s revealing he’s a Sith is nothing like that. There’s no big “gotcha!” moment. It’s made to be like a reveal to Anakin, not the audience.

And there is much more. Or else why as adults do we still love these films. His story telling is genius because it has layers for every audience. A five year old can watch it and love the gadgets and ships. A ten year old can love it because the story is incredible. An adult can love it because the story rings so true at every level.

12 year old’s are very good at digesting the intended story of Star Wars. He literally says he made the films to teach 12 year old’s lessons.

"The original film was designed to allow young people to think outside the box. It was designed for 12-year-olds, adolescents, kids who were starting to think outside the box anyway, as a way of saying, “Let your fantasies run free, because this is the time to do it.” That was one of the original purposes of “Star Wars.”
-Boston.com, 2005

That’s why George Lucas uses his knowledge of avant-grade cinema to make all of his films very visual in their storytelling; it appeals to our primal reactions.

When Darth Vader first walks in the door in A New Hope, you know he’s the powerful evil dark lord of the Sith all because of the visuals. You see the imposing man with the black costume, the scary mask and the huge cape and immediately go, “He’s evil, he’s in charge, he’s super powerful, what a badass”. The same with Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace. You look at him and go, “Shit he looks like a Demon.” It’s why Mustafar blatantly looks like Hell. It’s why Sidious groans like a demon while Knighting Darth Vader (because Sidious is the Devil). It’s why the Jedi Temple looks like a religious place of worship.

“The one exception to Coruscant’s predominant art deco style is the Jedi Temple. Lucas wanted the place where the Jedi to have a sacredness to it, as well as a daunting dose of grandeur. As a result, the Jedi complex is a bit Gothic, a bit pyramidal, and a but Chinese Forbidden City.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

"In contrast to the corporate coldness of the senate building, the Jedi Council architecture was designed to suggest a place of worship, a place that was both religious and monumental. For reference, Chiang took pictures of monuments from various cultures, then exaggerated their shapes and heights in his drawings.”
-Laurent Bouzereau & Jody Duncan, The Making of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

“The symbol of good in the galaxy, the sacred Jedi Temple is a hybrid of Gothic, art deco, and ancient Chinese and Egyptian architecture. […] Inspired by the TransAmerica pyramid and the rest of the San Francisco skyline, Chiang and Natividad designed the temple complex to be distinctly different than the rest of Coruscant.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

(nothing about an “ivory tower” here like the Star Wars fanbase likes to claim it’s meant to be interpreted as)

The movies are meant to be visually obvious. As is the dialogue, which is why Lucas writes the dialogue in such a flat, utilitarian, and blatant way.

Also you seem to be underestimating how smart a 12-year-old can be.

And frankly I think that you ignoring what is clearly in the films is ignoring some of Lucas’s brilliance as a storyteller.

I literally addressed everything you said. I think George Lucas is brilliant too in terms of his ideas (but not as a writer). And so does David-Talks-SW. You’re just coming away with the wrong stuff.

Also, you seem to think that Filoni made Clone Wars and Rebels in a vacuum away from Lucas.

No, I don’t. In fact I’m one of the few people who actually recognize that The Clone Wars was made by George Lucas. Which is why it fits his vision more then Filoni’s.

This post proves that Filoni doesn’t even entirely understand The Clone Wars (the series everybody says is his own and not George’s?):
https://www.tumblr.com/jedi-order-apologist/698124259656155136/yeah-exactly-theres-a-world-of-difference?source=share

They worked together, with Filoni learning both about the Jedi and about film making from Lucas constantly for nearly a decade. So when Filoni describes Qui-gon’s role and the deeper meaning to the PT, things that are covered the PT and Clone Wars, I don’t think you can blanket state that the publicaly available comments Lucas has made override that level of apprenticeship that Filoni has had.

Except I literally gave you a link to a list of stuff that shows that Filoni interprets the prequels differently from Lucas in multiple different fashions, from The Jedi, to Anakin’s attachments, what they think of the Jedi joining The Clone Wars, and the state of the Republic. How about you actually read the shit I send?

https://www.tumblr.com/jedi-order-apologist/698124259656155136/yeah-exactly-theres-a-world-of-difference?source=share

The Clone Wars does not make Qui-Gon out to be “the only true Jedi Master”. It makes him out to be the guy who discovers force ghosting, which is exactly what he is in the movies. There’s nothing in TCW that implies that Qui-Gon should’ve been Anakin’s master and not Obi-Wan.

This post here describes the true meaning of Qui-Gon’s character:
https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/695196724085604352/analyzing-qui-gon-jinn?source=share

REBELS, however, has nothing to do with George Lucas. That’s Dave Filoni’s.

Lucas’s other public statements regarding things like when he came up with the PT story, how far back Leia was Luke’s sister, etc. are full of easily disproven information so I don’t tend to take Lucas at his word in interviews. He is selling Star Wars and there is a reason behind everything he says, but it is not always accurate to what he was thinking when he wrote the story or the scripts or directed the film. Often he greatly simplifies what he says and makes it sound like that is the way it has always been.

You can take him at his word because with Leia and Vader it was an attempt to make it seem like he knew everything from the beginning while with the Jedi he’s clearly giving them his own philosophy.

Every lie George has done was for the sake of making it appear like what’s in the prequels was always the story. He lied about Vader always being Luke’s father and Leia always being his sister because he wants people to take the movies he’s making right now as “the true story”. That motivation doesn’t fit lying about the story he’s making at the time. It doesn’t make sense to say he was lying about the intent of the movies he’s making right now when the only reason he lies at all is to make the intent of the movies he’s making right now seem like the intent from the beginning. Come on, man. The motivations are not the same.

Like I said, the idea that George Lucas said the Jedi are the good guys just to appeal to the fanbase is frankly dumb. Lucas doesn’t give a shit what the fanbase says, he’ll praise Jar Jar and call Darth Vader pathetic and say Star Wars is for children (especially 12 year olds) despite how much backlash he’d get. He says what he says and means what he says.

I still think the most hilarious thing about your argument is your actually saying the guy notorious for saying “fuck the fans, fuck Hollywood, I’ll make what I want and say what I want” actually made up a bunch of lies about his films to cater to fans.

So yeah, when I rewatch that interview with Filoni I don’t hear him explaining what he thinks the PT story is. I hear him relaying to us what he learned from Lucas. His explanation of Duel of the Fates fits the name of the track,

It doesn’t fit the fact that Duel of the Fates plays in the battle between Yoda and Sidious which has nothing to do with Anakin. That reasoning for the name does fit with the fact that it was a track made to symbolize the battle between Good and Evil.

These quotes are from John Williams, not George Lucas.

Qui-gon is determined to train Anakin and instead he gets Obi-wan. Instead of a seasoned Master he gets a newbie Knight.

Except if you actually read the shit I send it would prove why Obi-Wan was a great master for Anakin. Anakin’s fall was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/660316936583905280/how-the-obi-wan-failed-anakin-subplot-was?source=share

Anakin would’ve been a great Jedi Master like Qui-Gon if it weren’t for Palpatine.

Filoni’s interview puts it in words, but his words really ring true.

Literally no. I already sent you a link to a post which proves everything he says wrong.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/678157778408374273/hi-this-came-about-because-ive-seen-a-few-of?source=share

Especially in light of how Qui-gon might have returned in ROTS.

He did return in ROTS, but only to tell Yoda about force ghosting. That was his only planned appearance ever in that film.

But after TPM, it is tracked where Anakin is facing a turning point.

You mean when Yoda and Sidious are fighting?

And it hinges on that duel on Naboo. It turned on who lived and who died.

If you read the stuff I sent you you would know it’s not true.

The notion that Anakin was doomed to fail from the get-go is going against the principle of choice that George was adamant to include in the Prequels. Anakin’s fall was caused by his own choices, not the outcome of some duel that has nothing to do with him. This is Filoni coming up with head canon because he thinks the duel is “boring” if it has nothing to do with Anakin. I know this is head canon because it goes against what John Williams says the track is meant to symbolize and it goes against one of the main themes of the prequels.

Yes, fate/destiny plays a part in Star Wars, but whether you follow it is contingent on your choices. As Lucas puts it:

George Lucas says it hinged on Anakin choosing to kill Palpatine in the office. If there was no Palpatine, Anakin would’ve been just fine. Anakin’s turn was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

So I see no reason to not take Filoni’s desription as 100% accurate. He has always been more literal and forthcoming in interviews where Lucas seems to be forever altering things.

Lucas has not once altered his opinion on the Jedi. Back in the 1980s, 2000s, and nowadays, he still says the Jedi were right and still echoes their philosophy as if it were his own.

You also didn’t address that the Jedi’s philosophy is obviously Lucas’.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j690eHY9EAQ
^^^ Here’s George Lucas just recently agreeing with Yoda in ROTS when he tells Anakin he needs to let go of what he fears to lose

^^^ Here’s George Lucas agreeing with the Jedi at a University lecture

SparkySywer said:

I used to be the resident prequel hater here but I think you’re selling the prequels short, brother

I didn’t say the prequels weren’t complex at all though.

I said:

Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

People like to cling to the idea that the Jedi were corrupt because it’s makes the prequels more complex then “The Jedi were right, Anakin was wrong.” But that’s not what Lucas is going for. The prequels still have complex themes about democracies and dictatorships, greed, possessive love, war, etc. But it is not, in any way, a critique of the Jedi or a critique of organized religion.

George Lucas’ story structure works in the “pass the baton” sort of way. It’s been that way since A New Hope. Padme contacting the Trade Federation is what allows us to transition to Naboo, because we’ve already been introduced to Padme in the context of what we’ve already seen.

yotsuya said:

It is layering. A interesting story for children and also an interesting story for adults. Children see only the glorious Jedi and adults see the cracks and flaws and how the Jedi fail Anakin which leads to his fall. Children seen someone giving in to anger and hate and turning bad. A very good moral lesson. Adults see lopsided teachings, an evil mentor grooming Anakin for an evil future, and a dogmatic religious order out of step with the times. Kids see a story about what not to do and Adults see a story about what not to do - both aimed at their age group. Brilliant story telling. If only the dialog and directing was so brilliant.

George Lucas has said over and over that the films are made specifically for 12 year olds. Over and over. Why would he incorporate something that’s apparently so essential for the story that would go over their heads? Especially when 12 year olds are supposed to be the main audience? He literally says that the optimal age to watch Star Wars is when your 12. How does it make any sense that essential parts of his films would not be able to be digested by children? Because the answer is that it’s not. That’s something you made up. Why would he make the films so that Yoda is obviously meant to be the all-wise mentor figure and the Jedi the good guys? Because he wants children to use the Jedi as a moral basis. He wants children to learn Jedi teachings, AKA his own philosophy.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/692774762606379008/because-these-movies-were-made-for?source=share

Also Palpatine grooming Anakin is so obvious children would be able to see it. That’s not something only an adult would be able to see. That’s why you will see adults complain how about obvious Palpatine’s manipulation is. “Why is Anakin so stupid, why can’t he see he’s being manipulated?”, “Why’s Palpatine so obviously evil?” The answer is he’s making it obvious so that children can pick up on it.

The reason people project these alternative meanings on the prequels is because they’re films for children, and therefore will make it more complex then it actually is in a desperate attempt to make the films appeal to them more. Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

yotsuya said:

You seem to have ignored all the OT things I pointed out.

No, I acknowledged them all, I just didn’t quote everything. You’re the one not reading or digesting what I said.

It is not just my head canon. It is there in the films.

No, it’s not.

I don’t agree that Filoni made it up. It is well documented how much he worked with Lucas directly. If he says that is what Lucas told him, I believe him.

George Lucas didn’t tell him that. Dave never even said George Lucas told him that.

I’m gonna link this again as you obviously didn’t read it. It proves that those things that Dave Filoni says was not George Lucas intentions.
https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/678157778408374273/hi-this-came-about-because-ive-seen-a-few-of?source=share

And he’s another post about how Dave Filoni differs in his view of the Prequels from George Lucas in many ways.
https://david-talks-sw.tumblr.com/post/698076989932929024/what-lucas-says-what-filoni-says

There is an entire thread on this site about Lucas being an unreliable narrator because he continually changes things. The various edits to the OT and PT films aren’t the only thing he changes. After the OT was complete, he liked to claim that Vader was always intended to be Luke and Leia’s father when that is very obviously not the case. The films and the previous drafts of the scripts prove otherwise.

Bruh. George was saying this stuff about the Jedi AS THE PREQUELS WERE COMING OUT. He said it when The Phantom Menace came out, when Attack of the Clones came out, and when Revenge of the Sith came out. It’s even in the audio commentary. And if you ask him now, he’ll say the same shit. There’s no retconning going on here.

To be honest, I really don’t stop to consider anything Lucas says that seems to conflict with the movies. And that tends to be quite a lot of what he says. So as far as I’m concerned, if you are listening to Lucas over the films themselves that is a non-canon head canon. The films disagree with him on a number of levels and what Filoni shared of his conversations with Lucas better agrees with the films than his own comments do. I referred to Filoni because what he has shared of his conversations with Lucas agrees with what I got out of the films long before he had done a single episode of Clone Wars. His comments add layers to the PT that agree with my own previous observations. Same with Luke’s comments in the ST. The only EU book I have read since the mid 90’s has been the Millennium Falcon book. I have largely ignored the EU so none of my observations have anything to do with the EU. It is only the the Saga films themselves. From the films I see the flaws in the Jedi. They are less than what they were. I think George often speaks of the Jedi at their height, not the Jedi just before their fall.

No, what you’re doing is refusing to re-interpret the films under the lens that George Lucas wanted you to interpret them in. You’re so attached to your head canon you refuse to see it any other way.

The films very much established that younglings are recruited before any bad habits can set in.

Yeah, the Jedi are taught not to repress their fears, taught to love things but not become attached to things, and are taught to let go. From birth. These are healthy things. If a Jedi doesn’t learn to let go of their fear, they will give into it and that will lead to the dark side.

With Anakin they try the normal youngling training and it fails. Fear is part of who Anakin is already and the teachings about fear fail.

Because Anakin refuses to follow the teachings. It’s not the training that fails. Otherwise why do all the other Jedi not have these problems? If Jedi are just bottled up emotions ready to explode, why don’t more fall to the dark side? The ones that do fall are the ones that refuse to follow the Jedi teachings, that let fear and greed consume them (Anakin and Dooku).

He needed teachings about anger and hate, not fear.

He needed teachings about all of those.

In The Phantom Menace, Anakin doesn’t need to be taught about anger and hatred because he doesn’t have it yet. He’s just a sweet, kind kid. But he is repressing his fears, and that needs to be dealt with. He will become angry and hateful if he continues on this path of bottling his fears.

The implication of his age and the various comments is that he is too old and the normal Jedi teachings don’t work.

He’s too old because he’s already old enough that he’s fallen into the habit of repressing his fears. Anakin keeps refusing that admit that he’s afraid. If you drag someone to therapy and they keep refusing to do the therapy and refuse to admit that anything’s wrong, nothing’s ever gonna get done.

Not ONCE does George Lucas blame the teachings on Anakin’s turn to the dark side. He blames Anakin for not applying the teachings.

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go throughout life and that he can’t hold onto things is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally, and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them.”

“Anakin wants to be a Jedi, but he cannot let go of the people he loves in order to move forward in his life. The Jedi believe that you don’t hold on to things, that you let things pass through you, and if you can control your greed, you can resolve the conflict not only in yourself but in the world around you, because you accept the natural course of things. Anakin’s inability to follow this basic guideline is at the core of his turn to the Dark Side.”

https://writerbuddha.tumblr.com/post/652270734706688000/george-lucas-on-attachment-from-1999-to-2021

Fast forward to Obi-wan and Yoda dealing with Luke, they have adjusted their teachings to account for his age where they had not for Anakin.

No. Yoda says that fear is one of the things Luke needs to be wary of.

“Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they.” He also repeats this in Return of the Jedi.

Also, when they’re trying to stop Luke from recklessly leaving to save people he isn’t ready to save, they’re teaching him to not give into his fear.

Also, LUCAS HIMSELF literally says, “The key to the dark side is fear.” IT’S RIGHT HERE. READ.

This is HIS OWN PHILOSOPHY. Unless you wanna make up some bullshit that his philosophy changed between the trilogies (which again, is proven wrong by Yoda warning Luke against fear), there’s no change. The Jedi aren’t “adjusting their teachings”. It stays the same.

HE EVEN SAYS THAT IT’S LITERALLY CORE TO STAR WARS. He just told you to your face that you misinterpreted the whole point of the Star Wars saga. And you’re still in denial XD

From a writing perspective with the PT being written later, that has to be a deliberate choice on Lucas’s part. He pulls the PT Jedi back to teaching to avoid fear. Anakin had fear, but Luke has anger. And yet Anakin fell and Luke did not? What is one key difference? What they were taught. You can see that Lucas analyzed what the failing with Anakin was and came up with something that Obi-wan and Yoda had fixed to teach Luke. You can see the difference in teachings in the PT and OT. The only reason for that is to show that the PT Jedi failed Anakin due to failures of their teachings. They could not adapt to Anakin’s age or inherent fear. Obi-wan and Yoda wanted to make sure that did not happen with Luke and trained Luke so that when Palpatine and Vader goaded him far enough, that he could come back from it.

If you read quotes from George Lucas he never differentiates the OT and Prequel Jedi. They’re just Jedi. And Luke is following the standard Jedi path, not a new one. This is your head canon.

In the films themselves we don’t see that in great detail.

That’s the crux. You’re filling in things in a way that Lucas doesn’t intend for you to because he writes things in a straightforward and blunt manner that doesn’t tackle all of the intricacies.

This goes along with Yoda’s advice in TLJ - to learn from your mistakes. That dialog just puts to words what we already saw Yoda do. So it there was a mistake, that means the PT Jedi did something wrong. They failed in training Anakin. They failed detecting Palpatine and his influence. They failed in a number of ways and Obi-wan and Yoda train Luke differently in several key ways.

And yet George Lucas goes on and on about how Anakin’s fall was not the Jedi’s fault. So no, Yoda did not fail Anakin. Yoda saying “The greatest teacher, failure is” is just talking about The Clone Wars and not seeing Palpatine. Not Anakin.

The PT Jedi ways work for younglings, but they fail for those who are older. It makes you wonder how many older force sensitive beings the Jedi decide not to train. Their numbers are greatly reduced and they could use the additional recruits. But if they don’t know how to train someone older who has issues then it makes sense.

They do know how to. It’s the same way you teach a youngling. The reason they train them so young because learning it when you’re young is way easier. But in the end, Luke went through the same teachings and it worked. Anakin just refused to follow the teachings. The difference between Luke and Anakin isn’t the teachings, it’s the fact that Anakin refused to apply them to himself and while Luke accepted them and overcame his flaws. When Anakin was given a choice to give into his fear, greed and hate or to let go and overcome it, he does it at every turn. He gives into his thirst for revenge against the Tuskens and Dooku and gives into his fear of losing Padme. Luke overcomes his fear that his friends will die and his anger towards Darth Vader and chooses to have compassion for his father instead.

Luke is headstrong and does many things his own way, but in that moment when he looks at Vader’s severed mechanical arm and his own mechanical hand, those lessons from Yoda and Obi-wan dominate the emotions running through him. Their revised teachings worked.

Luke’s arc in Return of the Jedi is to OVERCOME his headstrong methods. Him throwing away the lightsaber is REJECTING the dark side, REJECTING his anger and being calm and rational. His rampage against Vader wasn’t a good thing, it was a flaw he needed to overcome, and he did. And that’s the only example of Luke being reckless in ROTJ. In the plan to save Han Solo and when he faces Vader to try and turn him, he’s completely calm, calculating, and rational. Look at him when he’s talking to Jabba the Hutt and Darth Vader. He’s literally stiff as a rock. In fact, the scene in which he’s talking to Jabba in ROTJ mirrors Qui-Gon’s conversation with Boss Nass in The Phantom Menace. Because both scenes are of a Jedi rationally trying to peacefully negotiate and the other refusing to listen.

If the PT Jedi were right, there would be no need to show a difference in training. That there is a difference between the PT and OT is how you can tell that this is something deliberate that Lucas did. That is how you can tell what he told Filoni is accurate.

Then why did Lucas give the Prequel Jedi his own philosophy? Like actually?

That is how you can tell a lot of his interviews were BS.

Conspiracy theory bullshit. “He was lying to cover something up!”, you can say that about anything. “NASA said the Earth is round, here is the proof” “They’re lying to cover up Flat Earth!” Same shit. If you have to resort to conspiracy theory nonsense that everything Lucas says is to cover something up then you know you lost.

As it’s not JUST in interviews. It’s in the audio commentary, in “The Making of…” books, in The Star Wars Archives by Paul Duncan, in lectures he gives at Universities (once again proving that Jedi philosophy is also HIS philosophy), literally anywhere you can see George Lucas talk about Star Wars. He comments about this so much that literally the only thing short of it is actually talking to him in person.

The PT celebrated Jedi and Lucas wanted to publicly encourage that.

Why would he want people to celebrate people he intentionally portrayed as corrupt? He certainly didn’t want people to celebrate the Sith or the state of the Senate in the prequels. He outright has called Darth Vader “pathetic” twice (which like, I’m a Darth Vader fanboy, he’s my favorite character, but he’s right. He might be the most powerful force user and a badass, but the man lives a sad life, he’s constantly suffering). You know, the most worshipped character in all of Star Wars. If he’s spewing bullshit to appeal to the fans why does he continue to defend fucking Jar Jar Binks? The most hated character of all time? This literally doesn’t make any sense.

Tell me, how does it make any sense that Lucas literally gave the Jedi his own values and philosophy, which I’ve proven over and over, if the Jedi are meant to be flawed? Actually, I want to know? The answer is it doesn’t make sense. Because he’s not just talking about what the Jedi are teaching, he’s literally talking to you as himself. He’s giving you lessons that are exactly the same as Yoda’s.

But sure, bring up the same stuff I’ve debunked over and over and rationalize with conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe just admit that it’s your head canon.

https://david-talks-sw.tumblr.com/post/698315387285176320/so-why-is-mace-considered-to-be-unlikable-by-a

yotsuya said:

My point has been that starting the path to the dark side at fear is inaccurate.

No. If you leave your fear unchecked, eventually you’ll get angry at it. Then you’ll hate it. And once you let that hate consume you, it’ll lead to suffering.

Basic example: a kid has abusive parents. This leads him to fear them. If he doesn’t confront this fear and get out of the situation somehow, then he starts to get angry at them because of this. He gets angry because of his powerlessness and the fact that he has to keep dealing with it. He then hates them, and if he lets his hate consume him, it leads to suffering.

This is literally shown step by step in the prequels. You know all those cheesy edits that show Anakin at different stages of his life with the words “Fear. Anger. Hate. Suffering”? Yeah.

The path may begin at fear, but through proper teaching that path can be trod without falling to the dark side.

It’s almost like that’s the point. You can overcome fear. You can overcome anger. You can overcome hate. But if you let yourself get consumed by any of them, you’re on the path to the dark side.

Darth Malgus said:

You know, the more I read this discussion, the more I realize that this is not a discussion about the Jedi teachings and theology, but simply a confrontation between two philosophies and two different ways of understanding life.

On one hand, there are those who are in favor of Romanticism, expressing their passions and having selfish feelings, but without letting these things take over and balancing them with altruism. On the other hand, there are those who are completely opposed to passion and selfishness and profess absolute altruism, instead of a form of altruism that Is balanced with selfishness. It’s for this reason that Anakin’s story and tragedy have a different meaning depending on the person who talks about them.

Our contrasts have actually nothing to do with Star Wars, they’re simply a reflection of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So if anything, if we have to discuss these things, I think we should do it in the appropriate sections, where we can discuss about personal things, philosophy and stuff like that. Because again, this discussion about the Jedi is nothing more than a transposition of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So I think we should bring the discussion back to the objective reality of things, without necessarily having to involve Star Wars.

I’m just talking about Lucas’ intentions in all this. I am a very passionate person (more then most, I think) and I don’t think having selfish desires is inherently a bad thing at all, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. Hell, I have Peter and MJ from the MCU in my pfp lmao.

I don’t think Lucas does either though. He’s married. He has kids. He’s a passionate guy. We’re talking Mr. “I want to make the film I want to make and I refuse to back down the studios”. The Jedi are allowed to leave if they want to pursue their selfish desires. But as Lucas says, “A Jedi can’t be selfish”. Being a Jedi is a commitment, a way of life. It’s something that a Jedi has to do. The Jedi’s is based on his philosophy somewhat (especially when it comes to unchecked fear being the root of evil and letting go of things), but at the same time they’re an Order that needs to have rules. If Lucas doesn’t think anybody should get married then he shouldn’t have gotten married. But he did. Twice. He got married again in 2013 after making the prequels. It’s obvious that’s not him saying, “You can’t get married, ever! Bad!” He’s saying that a Jedi can’t get married because of commitment. If you want to get married, you need to leave the Order.

yotsuya said:

Well, you kind of made my point there. Yoda said that fear leads to anger which leads to hate which leads to suffering. At what point are you doomed to the dark side? It isn’t just fear. The entire teaching is based on stopping at fear. It is established in The Phantom Menace than Anakin has fear. The council does not want to teach him based on that. He has not given in to his anger, which we see when Palpatine is testing his chosen apprentices. The movies establish that the jump from anger to hate is where you get trapped. The Jedi are stopping at fear to avoid anger and hate. They are avoiding the path to the dark side by cutting it off at fear. Conquering your fear is a good teaching. But it was not the point that Anakin needed.

Yeah, the point is that they need to conquer their fear and confront it instead of bottling it up and leaving it unattended. If you don’t confront your fear, it’ll consume you. And anger and hate is what it’ll lead to. Conquering fear is not a bad thing for Anakin. It’s what he needs to do to live a healthy life. And as I’ve said, the reason they reject him is because he is bottling up his fear. He won’t conquer it because he won’t acknowledge that it exists.

Also the Jedi did not change their opinion on fear by ESB. Yoda even lists fear as one of the things that leads to the dark side. “Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they”.

I feel like the prequels would absolutely not be “ruined” if they were written well in terms of portraying Lucas’ intentions. In fact it’s kinda laughable IMO to say that making the audience care about and sympathathize with the Jedi, show them as kind and compassionate monks would make the movies worse. Imagine how much more heartbreaking Order 66 would’ve been if you actually cared about Ki-Adi Mundi and Plo-Koon, and the impact that Anakin betraying them all would have. The messages about not becoming too possessive of people and being selfish in your relationships wouldn’t be muddied. People would realize what Anakin actually did wrong instead of blaming the Council for his actions. You wouldn’t have people saying that the Sith “aren’t actually that bad”, despite the fact that the guy who wrote the Sith code openly said he was inspired by Mein Kampf and Lucas compares Sidious to Satan, that “bringing balance to the force means destroying the Jedi too”, or “the dark side isn’t inherently bad to use” (yeah, it is).

Servii said:

I wouldn’t say I’d hate the prequels, but I agree with you that the whole Jedi ethos that George intended in the prequels is inhuman in many ways. When Yoda tells Anakin “mourn them do not. Miss them do not,” George intended for Yoda to be right in saying that.

Except it’s not. In that scene, Yoda’s in a situation where Anakin is giving almost no information, to the point where Yoda literally needs to complete his sentences for him. If Anakin’s only gonna give him vague information, Yoda can only give generalities. And Yoda speaks in riddles.

So, with regards to the part about “rejoicing for those around you who transform into the force”, that’s simply Yoda’s way of saying “when you’re sad, try to remember the good times you had together”. This is also fair advice. He’s not telling Anakin “how dare you mourn or be sad instead of laughing! Bad Anakin! Start dancing and celebrating! Now!”

He’s telling Anakin to cherish the moments he had with that person that’s about to die, which will, in turn help him accept that inevitability, come to the conclusion that they had a good run. Instead of pulling back from these fears and this pain, he should face them head on and accept that it’s happening.

It’s very general advice, but it’s good advice.

I mean, they hold a funeral for Qui-Gon in which they’re allowed to mourn. Obi-Wan mourned for both Qui-Gon and Satine, Tiplee mourned Tiplar, right after their deaths. Hell, Yoda also mourns the Jedi that die during Order 66 and Padme’s death. He allows himself to feel the pain of Anakin’s loss in AOTC and kinda “mourns” for it too. There’s literally a funeral for the Jedi that die in the attack on the temple in The Clone Wars in which they’re allowed to mourn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCzrOh9_oU

This scene is a perfect showcase of how the Jedi deal with loss.

As I’ve said like several times, the only reason the Jedi come across as inhuman is both flat dialogue and the fact that Lucas never develops any of the Jedi characters besides the ones that come across as “exceptional” (Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon, who’s held up on this pedestal as “the one good Jedi” because he receives the most development outside Obi and Yoda). They’re just flat generic good guys, allowing the audience to project whatever they want on them. You can twist Mace Windu from “stern Jedi Knight” to “total asshole dickhead who hates Anakin” because he doesn’t have much screentime or development in the prequels and because of that it’s easy to take everything he says and does in the least charitable way possible. Mace is fed up with the Chancellor grabbing power and is wary of Anakin because he’s explosive, unpredictable and doesn’t have a full grasp on his emotions? “Actually you see he hates Anakin because he thinks he’s the real chosen one! What an asshole!”

Servii said:

But as time has gone on, the prequel fandom has gotten more and more fervent and unironic and sensitive to criticism, which is a shame. Now you have all these video essays about how the prequels are masterpieces and how the flaws aren’t actually flaws.

I feel this, at one point I was on this side before I kinda came around to the realization that they’re just not that well-written. Even ROTS I still mostly like more for it’s mythological motifs, themes, visuals, and music more then the writing. The best scenes are the ones with either Palpatine (because Ian McDiarmid is fucking awesome) or the ones where no one is talking. The opening act and third act are also pretty awesome.

A lot of time headcanon or supplemental material (a lot of which isn’t even canon anymore, which is why you’ll see people mixing up Legends and Canon all the time) is used to explain bad writing. “The Jedi come across as too bored and uncaring… actually you see, it was supposed to be that way! They’re supposed to be an emotionally repressed cult! It all makes sense now!”. Nope, George is just a flat dialogue writer who failed to get his intent across, making many people misunderstand the entire point. Among other things.

There’s a lot I love about Lucas because when you read what he was intending for for the prequels it really is brilliant, but man he needed someone else helping him with his scripts.

yotsuya said:

The Jedi teaching that we get in the first 6 films are all based on avoidance.

No, it’s not.

“…overcome fear which leads to hate”. Oh, it’s almost like a Jedi needs to face their fear and overcome it. Not avoid it.

Yoda saying “Once you start down the dark path…” is not saying “Once you feel fear once, you’l; be on the dark side forever.” That’d be ridiculous, especially considering Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training at the end of Phantom Menace. It’s saying, “Once you turn to the dark side, you’ll never be able to turn back.” Which is true, for the most part. Sidious never turned. Maul never turned. Dooku never turned. Vader only turned because of his son. Even his wife and master couldn’t convince him to turn. If it weren’t for Luke, the dark side would forever dominate his destiny. Yoda is making a generalization.

A big part of the path of the Jedi is about confronting your fears and overcoming it. It’s what the scene with Kanan and the temple guards is about, in Rebels. The Ithorian youngling getting his kyber crystal (overcoming his fear of the scary cave) in The Clone Wars. Yoda overcoming Dark Yoda in The Clone Wars. It’s why Yoda told Luke to go into the dark side cave on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back. Because he knew Luke would see what he’s afraid of. He needs to face it and overcome it. If Jedi’s relationship with fear was avoidance, he would’ve told Luke not to go in there.

Servii said:

The point is, he toes the line of whatever the official canon narrative currently is, but if the official canon narrative is defective and contradictory, then that doesn’t mean much.

Yeah and that’s basically the point of his entire blog. It’s about viewing Star Wars from a Word of God perspective.

I have my own head canons. To me, the sequels aren’t canon, especially TROS, which makes absolutely no sense and probably has some of the most plot holes of any sci-fi/fantasy screenplay. And he has head canons too, if you look at his blog long enough. But for the most part, he talks about Star Wars from a “Word of God” POV and always clarifies when he’s not.

Servii said:

Of course, though, the whole concept of “balance of the Force” is needlessly confusing, in my opinion. The word “balance” implies some sort of equal duality, and since Sith are the opposite of the Jedi, it’s no surprise that people would interpret the Sith as being part of that duality.

It’s called balance because naturally there is supposed to be both light and dark sides of the force. The problem with the Sith is their end goal is always to conquer the entire galaxy and subvert the force. To plunge it into complete darkness. There’s already enough evil going around without them.

I do agree, it wasn’t explained well in the films at all. They do say that Anakin needs to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the force but they don’t explain what balance means in this context. This is another example of Lucas underexplaining things to stick to the bottom line of the story. The funny thing about this method though is more then anything it actually distracts from the point he’s trying to make. He made the prequels to teach people about letting go but now all people talk about is how Anakin was totally in the right because the Jedi are actually emotionally repressive bullies. Because people are desperate to fill in the blanks and his flat dialogue and “tell, don’t show” approach doesn’t give the right impression. The prequels desperately needed an additional writer (contrary to popular belief Lucas did co-write ESB and ROTJ).

During TPM Palpatine was actively doing things (the invasion of Naboo) while post-ROTJ he was trapped in a defective clone body he couldn’t do anything in. Also during TPM the government was a lot more greedy and corrupt then post-ROTJ. Every good and bad person contributes to the Force.

The reason it has to be balanced post-ROTJ is because it’s kinda directly stated that it is. Anakin brought balance to the Force. Even in TROS he says, “Bring back the balance, Rey, as I did.”

Servii said:

I’m just happy we’re having a lively discussion again.

I mean, I do kinda regret allowing this tangent to go on in this thread since it’s supposed to be about Vader and not the Jedi, but hey, at least I’m actually somewhat able to convince people here.

I noticed you cite this guy’s lore posts a lot, and I’d just caution against relying too heavily on the words of one fan. I’ve read some of his stuff before, and I wouldn’t consider him the definitive or final word on these issues.

I cite him because he always uses quotes directly from George Lucas to support his claims. When you constantly use direct quotes from the author, if we’re talking about the films from a “Word of God” POV and not “Death of the Author”, then you become an instantly reliable source. Plus sometimes I’m lazy and just want to link to his posts rather then find the quote myself and also explain it myself (especially when the same conversation goes on for two days).

What exactly has he said that makes him unreliable?

yotsuya said:

But this final statement I have to disagree with. I feel that Lucas created the Republic Jedi Order in a very deliberate fashion.

Obviously wrong as the things Lucas says goes against your head canon.

But they are out of balance with the galaxy. Their ability to access the force is compromised.

They’re ability to use the force being compromised is because of the dark side clouding their vision, not the Jedi being bad at their jobs.

How they handle slavery is also addressed. Qui-gon says they are not there to free slaves. Okay. If it was a timing issue, why didn’t they go back and free some of the slaves. At least Shmi. That would have been one way to help Anakin get on the right path. Qui-gon might have had he lived. The other Jedi did nothing. So it was not a timing issue. It was a policy issue. The Jedi were being politically correct for their role in the Republic.

I already talked about this. I even brought up Shmi specifically. Please read what I said.

The Jedi have fallen from their high point and are now struggling and sacrifices have been made. Their teaching relies on avoidance rather than learning how to resist the dark side. Their missions have become more political - controlled by the Senate and Chancellor - than moral (going to help where they are needed). The Clone Wars are the final nail in their coffin because it emphasizes everything they are trapped into doing. And they get destroyed for it.

I also talked about their association with the Republic and not freeing slaves in the Outer Rim. Again, you’re not actually reading what I said.

Also the Jedi do learn to resist the dark side. It’s a part of their way.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/679421723083522048/balance-when-talking-about-a-jedi?source=share

If there is nothing wrong with the Jedi, why do they need the Chosen One to come and balance things?

The Chosen One prophecy is about destroying the Sith. Not the Jedi. The Sith are a cancer in the galaxy. They need to be destroyed.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/679554898557353985/bmnl?source=share

yotsuya said:

That is how it is supposed to work.

It’s not “how it’s supposed to work”, it’s how it does work. George Lucas says of the Jedi, “They are the most moral of anyone in the galaxy.” He says Jedi are allowed to love. Not just Qui-Gon. All of them.

What Lucas told Dave Filoni about the duel in TPM being truly a duel for the fate of Anakin, makes it clear that this was Lucas’s intent.

No. Lucas didn’t tell Filoni that. Filoni made it up.

Here’s a whole post covering Filoni’s “Duel of the Fates” tangent. In short, almost none of it follows Lucas’ vision. It’s all his headcanon.
https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/678157778408374273/hi-this-came-about-because-ive-seen-a-few-of?source=share

The rest of the comments are about Jedi in general. But you have to look at the fallen Jedi as well as those who remained in the order to see what Lucas did. The Jedi training did not work for everyone and it periodically failed.

22 Jedi over a thousand years left. Three of them turned to the dark side. These are the exceptions, not the rule. It’s not the fault of the teachings, it’s the fault of the person who refuses to use them.

At the same time, the Jedi weren’t able to deal with Anakin’s fears and teach him how to let go.

It’s not that they didn’t try to help Anakin it’s that Anakin refused the help the Jedi tried to give him.

Rian Johnson tied into this in TLJ with what Luke was saying about the Jedi.

No again. Luke blames the Jedi for his mistake. His arc is realizing that it was his personal failing that led to Ben’s turn and not the result of the Jedi way. He even admits at the end that the Jedi should live on.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/675200100120903680/about-luke-the-jedi-and-attachment?source=share

And going along with that, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern. In TROS we see Rey and Kylo Ren/Ben Solo openly use a force healing power.

Force healing was not come up with by George Lucas. And even if so, force healing is a part of the Jedi way because it’s inherently selfless. So there’s no reason to bring it up.

But in the Prequels, the way the Jedi teach this is to avoid love as it leads to attachment.

George Lucas says otherwise, and in the prequels themselves, nobody says that.

Just admit this is your head canon. Everybody has them.

Darth Malgus said:

Must we learn to let go? Yes, of course. But letting go doesn’t mean not caring about the people we love.

George doesn’t say that. He says the contrary. That the Jedi can love people and care about people.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this, and we shouldn’t suppress the fear of loss. I think it’s right, not only to be concerned about the people we love, but also to try to protect them and prevent bad things to happen to them.

It’s not about repressing your fear of loss. It’s about confronting that fear and letting it go. They’re different things. It’s about saying “Yes, I may not be in complete control, but I will do everything I can and if not, then I must let go and honor their memory by staying good”.

Also, you can’t expect a person to let go immediately. If a person we love dies in front of us, then it’s normal to be sad for a while, you can’t expect a person to see someone die in front of their eyes and a few seconds later act like nothing happened.

That’s not what happens. Obi-Wan takes plenty of time to mourn Qui-Gon. Both right after he dies and at his funeral. It’s literally never said that the Jedi have a strict time limit for how long you can mourn.

https://david-talks-sw.tumblr.com/post/693487689321906176/what-does-yoda-mean-when-he-says-rejoice-for

Furthermore, I think that being totally selfless, like the Jedi claim to be, is impossible. Love always requires a certain degree of possessiveness. If I love someone, I want to be with that person not only because I like him/her as a person, but also because the presence of that person makes me happy and makes me feel good. If the presence of that person didn’t make me feel good, then there would be no reason for me to engage in a romantic relationship with that person in the first place. In love, you have to give and receive. You give your love in the hope that your love will be reciprocated and that the exchange of that love will make you happy.

As I’ve said, Jedi can’t be in romantic relationships because of commitment. The Jedi are allowed to feel whatever they want, they can even have sexual experiences (Lucas says Jedi aren’t celibate), but they can’t sacrifice the greater good, the mission, to save a loved one.

Obi-Wan and Satine is an example of how a Jedi deals with romantic love right. Anakin and Padme is an example of how it’s done wrong.

Also, I don’t think that the Jedi can give lessons about what absolute love and compassion mean, since they were the first not to practice this phantom “universal love”. If they really did have unconditional love for the entire Galaxy, then they would have paid more attention to civilians and ordinary people instead of lock themselves in their own Temple and put themselves at the service of corrupt politicians, and maybe they would have cared more about the millions of people who lived in slavery and disease on Tatooine and other criminal-controlled planets. “I’m not here to free slaves”, Qui-Gon said. A great example of unconditional love for every sentient being, I must say! It’s too easy to practice “absolute love and compassion” exclusively with the people we know. And yet, this is what the Jedi do, because I don’t remember having ever seen them going out in the middle of the streets to help starving people. I mean, they didn’t even had to left Coruscant to do it, because you know, the low levels of Coruscant are already full of poor people who need help. So the Jedi should stop thinking of themselves as the custodians of absolute truth, because they’re the first to not practice what they preach.

The Jedi literally day by day participate in diplomatic missions to resolve conflicts, thus saving people in the process. Literally the opening scene of The Phantom Menace is the Jedi going to negotiate with the Trade Federation to save the people of Naboo. That’s the reason that sequence exists, to show the Jedi’s day job. The reason they don’t help the common people during the war is because they’re too busy with the war, because Palpatine drafted them into service.

But hey, look, here’s a canon example of a Jedi, Mace Windu, saving and protecting ordinary people.

Slavery only happens in the Outer Rim. The Jedi don’t have any jurisdiction there. The Senate has authority over the Jedi. The Jedi don’t have the resources to do an all out war on the Outer rim. They’d need backing by the Senate. An army. There’s only 10,000 Jedi and a shit ton of systems with slavery with millions of people. The Hutts aren’t something to laugh at. They’re literally one of the biggest powers in the galaxy. Even the Galactic Empire didn’t want war with them. They wouldn’t stand a chance because a Jedi’s biggest weakness is numbers, which is why battle droids are their perfect enemies that aren’t other force users. In the areas where they do have jurisdiction? They do free slaves. They wiped out the Zygerrian empire when they dared to do the slave trade in Republic territory. It’s not that the Jedi don’t give a shit, it’s they that don’t have the resources necessary because the Senate is greedy and selfish.

The Jedi can’t just leave the Republic. They have a responsibility to be diplomats. To save people through peaceful negotiation on a daily basis. Leaving would be devastating to the Republic. And like, it’s not like they’d be able to free all of the slaves on Tatooine without backing from the Senate, anyway. What the Jedi really should’ve done is gotten political allies in the Senate so they could change the system and make things better. When your government is shit, you don’t just ditch it, you make it better.

Qui-Gon saying “I’m not here to free slaves” is just him bluntly stating facts. That’s not why he’s there. They’re on an urgent mission, to save the Naboo. They can’t deal with slaves on Tatooine right now. They need to get to Coruscant as soon as possible. This is just another example of Lucas being a flat dialogue writer, not Qui-Gon being a dickhead. When you have a guy writing your script that writes flat dialogue, the characters are gonna say things in a very flat way that might come across as callous.

Besides, you literally have Qui-Gon try to free Shmi (when he tries to bet Watto the racing pod for both Anakin and Shmi) and Qui-Gon ask Shmi if she’s alright when Anakin has to leave. He also waits patiently as Anakin says goodbye. He’s not meant to be seen as a callous dickhead.

Nonetheless, this isn’t “George Lucas believes the Jedi shouldn’t help the common people”, it’s “The prequels are complex as shit and have a million things going on in them and because of that they don’t have time to address this stuff”.

In addition, talking about Obi-Wan as the perfect example of a person who lets go immediately is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, Obi-Wan managed to let go immediately when Siri Tachi died, but he couldn’t let go immediately when Qui-Gon was killed. When Maul killed Qui-Gon, all Obi-Wan did was attack him aggressively and violently. I mean, this is no mystery to anyone, just review the scene of the fight between Maul and Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan was so upset and angry that he let his emotions take over, and as soon as the shield opened he immediately threw himself at Maul, attacking him. Of course, after killing him, Obi-Wan calmed down and ran to Qui-Gon to hear his last words. But in the meantime he fought Maul and killed him, driven by anger and aggressive feelings. So, I think Obi-Wan is quite hypocritical in criticizing Anakin, because he did pretty much the same, although on a smaller scale.

Obi-Wan getting angry and attacking ferociously is a character flaw in TPM. He has clear growth in all three films. Notice how he never gives into his anger in the other two movies. In fact literally his arc in AOTC is learning to go easy on Anakin, because he suffers from some of the same arrogance that Anakin does.

The Jedi have great respect for Dooku and think he could never kill anyone. That’s true. But let’s examine carefully what both Mace Windu and Ki Adi Mundi say. Ki Adi Mundi says: “He’s a politically idealist, not a murderer”. After that, Mace says: “You must know, My Lady, that Dooku was once a Jedi. He could never kill anyone, it’s not in his character”. Well, to be honest, the only thing I see in this dialogue is simply the Jedi being arrogant. Yes, they don’t think that Dooku could ever kill anyone, they don’t believe that he’s a murderer. But why do they think that? But it’s clear, because he was once a Jedi, and for God’s sake, everyone knows the Jedi are perfect, so even if one of them leaves the Order, he could never become a murderer. It’s not that the Jedi are saying those things about Dooku because they sincerely respect him and have affection for him, but simply because they have so much faith in their own teachings that they think that even if someone leaves the Order, he could never become a murderer or hurt others.

You’re just using the least charitable interpretation possible which is obviously not what Lucas intended.

If you were a cop and you had a partner who you worked with for years, he quit, and then someone years later claimed he committed a crime, you would probably use the fact that he was a cop to help make the case that it’s unlikely. Not to mention that being a Jedi is a way of life. They’re taught these things from birth. For one of their own to do something so overtly evil is unthinkable.

In addition, the statue that the Jedi have dedicated to Dooku inside the Temple is not a commemorative or appreciative statue. In the Temple library there are 20 statues, depicting the so-called Lost 20, that is, 20 Jedi masters who at some point decided to leave the Order. Dooku is part of the group of the Lost 20, and the Jedi have placed his statue in the Temple library, not to commemorate him, but simply as a warning. Further information ere: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Lost_Twenty/Legends

That’s from Legends, not Canon. Legends was not made by George Lucas.

In said deleted scene Jocastu Nu goes on about how Dooku was so great and that it was a privilege knowing him. She compliments his statue, saying he has a powerful face. Obviously the statue is not meant to be a warning. If you read the Dooku: Jedi Lost novel (which is canon), Yoda doesn’t have any problem with Dooku leaving. He even lets him keep his lightsaber and wishes him luck. In the Obi-Wan and Anakin canon comic (takes place a couple years after TPM), Obi-Wan doesn’t have a problem with Anakin wanting to leave the order and was also willing to leave with him. Yoda doesn’t have a problem with it either, when Obi-Wan tells him about it.

“His path before coming to us… difficult. His questions natural.”
“If, after you return, Anakin still wishes to leave us, then released, he shall be. Jailers, the Jedi are not.”
Wow, what an asshole!

Again, you’re not only confusing attachment according to Lucas (a selfish obsession with holding on no matter what) with emotional connections. George Lucas writing dialogue in a flat way doesn’t mean the Jedi are actually supposed to be flat and emotionless. He’s just not a good dialogue writer. And just because George Lucas doesn’t address a bunch of stuff in his scripts doesn’t mean his intentions of what the Jedi are is invalid. Everything you’re saying that makes the Jedi morally wrong, like them not saving slaves? That’s not something that’s delved into in the prequels, you just filled in the blanks. Now, you’re supposed to do that, when watching a movie, but Lucas doesn’t delve into it enough and that leaves people coming to a conclusion that he didn’t intend, and that’s his fault. As I said in the other thread, Lucas strictly made the prequels to focus on the themes/story of letting go and how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. He constantly sticks to that bottom line. It’s why Shmi isn’t addressed except for when it comes to Anakin. The Jedi don’t free Shmi? That’s not because they’re morally wrong, it’s because Lucas doesn’t bother to address it. Because the Jedi are not the focus. You’re just supposed to take the fact that they’re good guys for granted. Shmi is there as a plot device in Anakin’s story arc. That’s it.

The only reason people have come to this uncharitable view of the Jedi Order is because George Lucas is not a good writer. Simple as that.

Peter Pan said:

Maybe this could be connected with Anakin constantly losing his lightsaber. In the movie he rarely reacts to this, but if he did show some signs of anxiety due to being defenseless, it could work well with this narrative. After all Obi-Wan reminds him that this weapon is his life.
If we could somehow draw the focus to Anakin’s shock about losing his arm and lightsaber to Dooku, then we would have a good set up to include this plot point about Anakin’s own mortality in III.
Firstly this could be deliberately be brought up by Palpatine after Anakin killed Dooku. Then Obi-Wan could remind Anakin to jump from the elevator shaft a second time and we could change Grievous offense against Anakin’s age to a threat to kill them, to which Anakin response with an insult.
Finally we could change some of the dialogue during the opera scene, so that it focuses on the power to avert death rather than to save others. On top of that we could add “forever” to Anakin’s line about ruling the galaxy.

In conclusion I think that it definitely is possible to add this theme to Anakin’s fall. Not as the central motivation to turn his back on the Jedi, but rather as a contributing factor like his frustration with the council.

Excellent ideas.

Darth Malgus said:

On the contrary, “Protect the ones you love, do everything you can to make them feel good, but if in the end you don’t succeed, then, only then, you have to learn to let go”, this is a deep, human and healthy teaching.

It’s funny because this is literally what Lucas thinks:

“They can still love people. But they can’t possess them. They can’t own them. They can’t demand that they do things. They have to be able to accept the fact, one, their mortality, that they are going to die. And not worry about it. That the loved ones they have, everything they love is going to die and they can’t do anything about it. I mean they can protect them as you would ordinary protect, you know, ‘Get out of the way of that car.’ Somebody charges you with a gun, you knock the gun out, but there is an inevitability to life which is death and you have to accept that.”

“[Jedi Knights] do not grow attachments, because attachment is a path to the dark side. You can love people, but you can’t want to possess them. They’re not yours. Accept that they have a fate. Even those you love most are going to die. You can’t do anything about that. Protect them with your lightsaber, but if they die they were going to die. there’s nothing you can do. All you can do is accept that fact.
In mythology, if you go to Hades to get them back you’re not doing it for them, you’re doing it for yourself. You’re doing it because you don’t want to give them up. You’re afraid to be without them. The key to the dark side is fear. You must be clean of fear, and fear of loss is the greatest fear. If you’re set up for fear of loss, you will do anything to keep that loss from happening, and you’re going to end up in the dark side. That’s the basic premise of Star Wars and the Jedi, and how it works.
That’s why they’re taken at a young age to be trained. They cannot get themselves killed trying to save their best buddy when it’s a hopeless exercise.”

I talked about this in another thread so I’m gonna dump it here.

George Lucas inserted his own values and philosophy into the Jedi. He agrees with the Jedi all the time. Read any one of his quotes and he frames the Jedi as the ones in the right. Especially Yoda.

Here’s the deal about Jedi philosophy: attachment in Star Wars does not mean the dictionary definition of attachment. It’s the Buddhist definition: the inability to let go of things. Lucas has said the Jedi are allowed to feel emotions. They’re allowed to feel love. They’re allowed to care about other people and have emotional bonds. This is shown. Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training (proving that Anakin being afraid wasn’t the problem, it’s that he wouldn’t admit it and repressing it that was the problem; hence, “Be mindful of your feelings.”). Yoda tells Padme he has warm feelings in his heart after she survives the assassination attempt. Obi-Wan is friends with Dexter Jester. Mace Windu vouches for both Dooku and Anakin in AOTC (Mace and Yoda cut Anakin more slack then Obi-Wan, in AOTC). Yoda cries when he feels Anakin’s in pain. The bond between a Jedi master and padawan is strong. Obi-Wan loves both Qui-Gon and Anakin. In The Clone Wars series, the Jedi council cares about Yoda when they think something’s wrong with him when he claims to hear Qui-Gon’s voice. Yoda calls Anakin his friend. Yoda, Plo-Koon, and Mace Windu are shown to be caring towards the clones. Tiplee openly shows sadness at Tiplar’s death. She loved her like a sister. The Jedi is supposed to be like one big family.

Should these things have been better clarified and emphasized in the scripts, and the Jedi made to seem more kind and empathetic? Absolutely. You shouldn’t have to read Lucas quotes (or watch a 7 season TV show) to understand the movies. But George Lucas being a bad writer doesn’t change the fact that the Jedi aren’t intended to be emotionless assholes.

The “no attachments” doctrine is about not letting your feelings interfere with a mission and being willing to let things go when need be. There’s a difference between selflessly loving someone and being in a possessive, toxic relationship. Obi-Wan loves Satine, in The Clone Wars, he even says, “It’s not that we’re not allowed to have these feelings, it’s natural”, but he doesn’t let it interfere with a mission like Anakin does. And when Satine dies, Obi-Wan lets her go. He doesn’t succumb to the dark side. He doesn’t close out his emotions. He feels his emotions but then moves on. When Bo-Katan tries to emotionally blackmail him, he doesn’t fall for it, because he can’t let his emotions cloud his judgement. The same thing happens after Qui-Gon’s death. He openly cries, but then moves on and honors his memory by training Anakin.

He doesn’t enter a relationship with Satine because he has a commitment to the Jedi Order. If a Jedi wants to be in a relationship, they need to leave. “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind.” And there’s no shame in leaving the Order. Dooku left and the Jedi still spoke fondly of him, let him keep his lightsaber (Dooku: Jedi Lost novel), and even built him a statue (in a deleted scene). It’s not a cult. Anakin should’ve either left the Jedi Order after AOTC or waited to marry Padme after the clone war.

The reason a Jedi can’t be in a committed romantic relationship is because they, on a daily basis, go on diplomatic missions in which billions of lives hang in the balance. The slightest imbalance in a Jedi knight caused by relationship problems could be a disaster. This is what the last act of AOTC is meant to show: because Anakin rushed in to fight Dooku because he’s angry about the dead Jedi and Padme, he ruined him and Obi-Wan’s chances at beating Dooku. Imagine if Obi-Wan and Anakin managed to keep Dooku at a standstill by working together, and then Yoda showed up. Dooku has no chance. The war is over. Literally in the scene on Dagobah in the original trilogy, Yoda is lecturing Luke on how the Jedi path is not just something you just do when you feel like it. It’s a lifestyle. It’s not like working at Subway, you literally dedicate your life to it.

Anakin knows the difference between attachment and love. As he says in AOTC and an episode in The Clone Wars when he lectures Ahsoka on the importance of letting go of attachments (in the Geonosis zombie worms episode). It’s not that he doesn’t understand the teachings or objects to them, it’s that he doesn’t have the emotional strength to apply them to himself.

The problem is that Anakin was willing to do anything to keep Padme from dying. He literally kills kids. He becomes possessive of Padme. He thinks of her as an object. He’s not turning to the dark side to save her, he’s doing it because he doesn’t want to live without her. He doesn’t want to feel the pain of losing her. He doesn’t care that he’s destroying everything she fought and cared about her whole life (he was betraying her too by joining Palpatine). He was shown that Padme could die (“Always in motion is the future”) and that there’s nothing he could do about it (for the sake of the plot we’re gonna assume there’s no such things as C-sections in Star Wars; which I mean, this is coming from the same guy who said “There is no underwear in space”, so it really ain’t all that hard to believe), but he refused to accept it. According to George Lucas, Plagueis could not actually cheat death. That was a lie. There was nothing Anakin could do except trust in Padme’s strength to make it through childbirth. If he had listened to Yoda and accepted that, then things would’ve been alright. It’s possible she would’ve survived, and if not, Anakin would’ve needed rejoice for the good memories he shared, honor her memory, and let go. That’s what the Jedi way is about. It’s really just about living a healthy life. It’s about not craving control over things you have no control over. Because that’s how you get greedy.

George Lucas obviously doesn’t think you should repress your emotions, never be emotionally attached to anybody or never get married. He’s a very emotionally open guy, he’s been married twice and has kids. He just used a different meaning of the word attachment, and people were (rightfully) confused.

A quote from George Lucas:
“A Jedi is never lonely. They live on compassion. They live on helping people, and people love them. They can love people back. But when that person dies, they let go. Those that cannot let go become miserable. That’s the lonely place.”

The fact is, and the entire crux of this whole thing is, George Lucas is not a great writer. He didn’t do a good job conveying that the Jedi can love people and the difference between attachment and love. Because he’s an excellent visual artist, but not a good writer. His specialty is experimental avant-garde cinema, which is why there’s so much visual storytelling in the original 6. But his dialogue is flat and utilitarian. Which is why the Jedi appear flat and utilitarian. Lucas doesn’t really care about nitty gritty continuity or writing great dialogue. He literally calls lightsabers “laser swords” half the time. The reason? Because he’s not really about all that, he really just cares about the themes, the mythological motifs, the story he’s trying to tell. The story he’s trying to tell is, “The dangers of not being willing to let things go.” (the other is democracies and dictatorships, but that’s irrelevant). It’s not about the Jedi. So he sticks to that bottom line. The Jedi are just the good guys. He expects you to take that for granted. Yoda is literally a vessel Lucas uses to convey his own philosophy. The whole, “Why didn’t the Jedi go back to Tatooine and free Shimi?” is just a plot hole, not a way to point out the flaws of the Jedi. He does make sure to have Qui-Gon try to free Shmi to show that he’s selfless and caring, but once she’s out of the story it doesn’t really matter. Because Lucas doesn’t really dwell on that stuff. He’s more focused on the overall themes. Shmi has to die for Anakin’s story arc. She leaves the story when she needs to and comes back when she needs to. It’s why he forgets that Leia should know her birth mother. Because to him, the visual parallels between Vader’s birth and the death of his wife/birth of his children was more important. He cares more about sticking to themes then continuity or the plot. Now, you really shouldn’t have to sacrifice one for the other, but again, Lucas is a visual, experimental filmmaker. He isn’t into all that. He cares more about mythological themes and concepts then plot holes or great dialogue writing.

Vladius said:

He doesn’t specifically want revenge on the Jedi, but I think he does get angry with them. His frustrations with the council make it easier for Palpatine to sway him and get him to accept moral relativism. I did like that it wasn’t so simplistic as him just hating the Jedi.

Touching on the greed thing, I think one part people tend to miss is that Anakin could have left the Jedi if he really wanted to be with Padme. He loved her but he also had an ambitious side that wouldn’t let him pass up chances to advance and increase in power. “I want more, and I know I shouldn’t.” He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Notice that’s how Palpatine tempts him with both things at once - he can save Padme by becoming more powerful. It appeals to his love for her and his ambition at the same time, and he gets swept up in it until his ambition lets the dark side overwhelm him and he’s force choking the person he’s ostensibly trying to save.

I agree. There are people who think that Anakin sides with Palpatine partially because Ahsoka was banished and he got denied the rank of master. But Lucas says over and over, that the only reason he turned was to save Padme. No nightmares, no turn to the dark side. All the “The Jedi are evil” bullshit is exactly that. Bullshit. It’s his rationalization for his actions. He gets a little irritated that they don’t give him the rank of master, but like, first, he’s not ready for it (yet), and second, that wouldn’t have made him turn to the dark side.

“…it’s very easy to have the audience believe that Anakin is miffed because he doesn’t get to go on the mission [to Utapau], that, you know, he’s angry because he’s not a master, and this scene [Padme’s ruminations] is really designed to remind you that his real problem is that he just doesn’t wanna lose her” - GL Revenge of the Sith Director’s Commentary

I agree with the last paragraph. Him joining the dark side to save Padme was absolutely selfish. It was about him not wanting to feel the pain of losing her, not her own safety. He was thinking of her as a possession and not a person, which is what attachment is, according to the Jedi. I think him wanting power could’ve been emphasized more though. Hence why I think it would be cool if they added another layer to his turn: wanting to be immortal for himself.

Darth Malgus said:

Well, although I’m usually a fan of Lucas’ work, in this case I can only disagree with him. As I have already explained elsewhere, I don’t share his view about the Jedi and Anakin’s fall, because I think that the Jedi philosophy was inherently flawed and that Anakin doesn’t deserve to be blamed for what happened. That said, I think what you highlighted is simply a coincidence. I mean, the same reasoning could be applied to Anakin and Padmé’s respective last words. Padmé’s last words were: “I know there is good in him, I know there is, still”, while Anakin’s last words were: “You were right”. Well, put this way, it could almost feel like a connection, when in reality it’s simply a coincidence. The fact that there are sentences that casually rhyme within the movies doesn’t mean that there is a real connection between them. These are just coincidences, and to derive an entire explanation/theory from them is at least exaggerated in my opinion.

Here’s the deal about Jedi philosophy: attachment in Star Wars does not mean the dictionary definition of attachment. It’s the Buddhist definition: the inability to let go of things. Lucas has said the Jedi are allowed to feel emotions. They’re allowed to feel love. This is shown. Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training (proving that Anakin being afraid wasn’t the problem, it’s that he wouldn’t admit it and repressing it that was the problem). Yoda tells Padme he has warm feelings in his heart after she survives the assassination attempt. Mace Windu vouches for both Dooku and Anakin in AOTC (Mace and Yoda cut Anakin more slack then Obi-Wan, in AOTC). Yoda cries when he feels Anakin’s in pain.

Should these things have been better clarified and emphasized in the scripts, and the Jedi made to seem more kind and empathetic? Absolutely. You shouldn’t have to read Lucas quotes to understand the movies. But George Lucas being a bad writer doesn’t change the fact that the Jedi aren’t intended to be emotionless assholes.

The “no attachments” doctrine is about not letting your feelings interfere with a mission and being willing to let things go when need be. Obi-Wan loves Satine, in The Clone Wars, he even says, “It’s not that we’re not allowed to have these feelings, it’s natural”, but he doesn’t let it interfere with a mission like Anakin does. And when Satine dies, Obi-Wan lets her go. He doesn’t succumb to the dark side. He doesn’t close out his emotions. He feels his emotions but then moves on. When Bo-Katan tries to emotionally blackmail him, he doesn’t fall for it, because he can’t let his emotions cloud his judgement. The same thing happens after Qui-Gon’s death. He openly cries, but then moves on and honors his memory by training Anakin.

He doesn’t enter a relationship with her because he has a commitment to the Jedi Order. If a Jedi wants to be in a relationship, they need to leave. “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind.” And there’s no shame in leaving the Order. Dooku left and the Jedi still spoke fondly of him, let him keep his lightsaber (Dooku: Jedi Lost novel), and even built him a statue (in a deleted scene). It’s not a cult. Anakin should’ve either left the Jedi Order after AOTC or waited to marry Padme after the clone war.

Anakin knows the difference between attachment and love. As he says in AOTC and an episode in The Clone Wars when he lectures Ahsoka on the importance of letting go of attachments (in the Geonosis zombie worms episode). It’s not that he doesn’t understand the teachings or objects to them, it’s that he doesn’t have the emotional strength to apply them to himself.

The problem is that Anakin was willing to do anything to keep Padme from dying. He was shown that Padme could die (“Always in motion is the future”) and that there’s nothing he could do about it (for the sake of the plot we’re gonna assume there’s no such things as C-sections in Star Wars; which I mean, this is coming from the same guy who said “There is no underwear in space”, so it really ain’t all that hard to believe), but he refused to accept it. According to George Lucas, Plagueis could not actually cheat death. That was a lie. There was nothing Anakin could do except trust in Padme’s strength to make it through childbirth. If he had listened to Yoda and accepted that, then things would’ve been alright. It’s possible she would’ve survived, and if not, Anakin would’ve needed rejoice for the good memories he shared, honor her memory, and let go. That’s what the Jedi way is about. It’s really just about living a healthy life. Not craving control over things you have no control over. Because that’s how you get greedy.

George Lucas obviously doesn’t think you should repress your emotions, never be emotionally attached to anybody or never get married. He’s a very emotionally open guy, he’s been married twice and has kids. He just used a different meaning of the word attachment, and people were (rightfully) confused.

Another quote from Lucas:
“A Jedi is never lonely. They live on compassion. They live on helping people, and people love them. They can love people back. But when that person dies, they let go. Those that cannot let go become miserable. That’s the lonely place.”

That parallel is definitely not a coincidence. Anakin’s whole arc is learning to stop wanting control over the natural cycle of life.

As Lucas puts it:
“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth, they’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So, what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.”

Obviously when the line in Return of the Jedi was written it wasn’t about that. But the premise of his turn in the prequels adds meaning to that line where there wasn’t before. Thus making it a retroactive parallel.

yotsuya said:

That would have been so cool. Not sure if you can find a way to put that in an Ep III edit, but it would enrich the story.

In order to do that you’d really have to have whole new scenes and dialogue. It’s not something you could do through the edit, at least not in a way I can think of.

It would have to be a rewrite. Which is something I’ve been thinking of doing, for the prequels.